Carlos Sainz, the 10-Second Penalty, and the Bigger Questions About F1 Stewarding

Formula 1 sells itself as the pinnacle of motorsport: cutting-edge cars, brilliant engineers, and the most talented drivers in the world. But when it comes to penalties and stewarding, the sport often feels stuck in neutral. The recent saga surrounding Carlos Sainz’s ten-second penalty at the Dutch Grand Prix, and the delayed appeal that followed, highlights just how messy F1’s system can be.

Credit: F1

Penalties in Theory vs. Reality

The penalty system in Formula 1 is meant to keep things clear and fair. When an incident happens, the stewards review it, decide who was at fault, and hand down a punishment if necessary. Common sanctions include:

·         Time penalties of five or ten seconds, usually served at a pit stop or added after the race.

·         Drive-through or stop-go penalties, more severe because they cost far more time.

·         Grid drops, applied at the next race.

·         Penalty points on a driver’s super licence, which can add up to a race ban.

In theory, these are meant to be consistent and easy to understand. In reality, it doesn’t always work that way. What earns one driver a penalty can, in a similar situation the next week, be dismissed as “just racing.” That unpredictability has been a recurring complaint from teams, drivers, and fans alike.

What Happened at Zandvoort

The Dutch Grand Prix on August 31st brought this issue into focus. On lap 26, just after a safety car restart, Carlos Sainz went side-by-side with Liam Lawson into Turn 1. The two touched wheels, both picked up punctures, and the stewards almost immediately put the blame on Sainz.

Their reasoning was that he chose a high-risk line on the outside and didn’t leave enough margin for error. The penalty: ten seconds added to his race and two penalty points on his licence.

From Sainz’s point of view, and from the perspective of many watching, this seemed heavy-handed. Wheel-to-wheel battles at restarts are messy by nature. Was it really an avoidable collision, or just a racing incident? The fact that both drivers came off with damage made it feel like an unfortunate clash rather than one driver’s reckless move.

The Appeal

Once the penalty was given, Sainz served it in-race, and his finishing position was fixed. But Williams, his team, believed there was more to the story. They gathered new evidence: onboard footage, alternative camera angles, and driver input that wasn’t available to the stewards in real time.

Because F1’s regulations require “new and significant” evidence for an appeal, Williams had to wait until they had it all compiled before making a formal request. That meant the review process didn’t happen until almost two weeks later.

When the stewards looked at the fresh footage, they reversed their stance. They ruled it a racing incident after all. The two penalty points were removed, and Sainz’s name was cleared — at least on paper.

But the crucial detail? The race classification stayed the same. By the letter of the regulations, once a time penalty has been served, the finishing order cannot be changed. In other words, Sainz had been penalized in a race where, retrospectively, he was found not to be at fault.

Why This Matters

This isn’t just about one driver’s frustration. It exposes deeper flaws in F1’s system. On one side, the FIA has tried to codify everything into clear guidelines so there’s no ambiguity. But this sometimes leads to penalties that don’t pass the “common sense” test. On the other side, even when mistakes are acknowledged, the structure of the rules makes it impossible to fix the outcome.

The result is a process that feels both inconsistent and inflexible. Drivers and teams don’t always know what to expect from one weekend to the next, and when an error is finally corrected, it’s often too late to make a meaningful difference.

Patterns of Inconsistency

The Sainz case isn’t unique. Over the past few seasons, there have been countless examples where similar incidents have been judged differently. A squeeze at one track gets ignored; at another, it earns a time penalty. A driver gains a small advantage by cutting a corner and gets punished one week, but another driver in a similar situation escapes without a sanction.

This isn’t just frustrating for fans; it undermines trust in the system. If the goal is fairness, then the perception of fairness matters as much as the letter of the law.

What to do about it?

So, what could be improved? A few ideas stand out:

Clearer explanations. When stewards make a decision, fans and teams want to understand why. Plain-language reasoning, not just legalistic phrases, would go a long way.

Consistency in application. Guidelines are only useful if they’re applied evenly from race to race. The FIA has made efforts here, but the Sainz case shows there’s still work to do.

Flexibility for reversals. If new evidence proves a driver was wrongly penalized, there should be a mechanism to correct the race result. Otherwise, what’s the point of the review?

The Takeaway

Carlos Sainz’s Dutch Grand Prix penalty will probably be remembered as one of those “only in F1” controversies. A driver was punished, cleared after the fact, and yet still carried the impact of the penalty. For fans, it reinforced the sense that stewarding decisions can be both inconsistent and strangely rigid.

Until Formula 1 finds a way to balance strict rules with common-sense judgment, stories like this will keep cropping up. And every time they do, they chip away at the credibility of the system — a credibility the sport badly needs if it wants to match the professionalism of everything else it showcases.